Essays on Whole Person Life – Page 10 – Whole Person Whole Life

The Weight of Sin is Lighter – Veith

October 3, 2023 Eric Potter Quotes

“A century ago a person may have committed adultery flagrantly and in defiance of God and man, but he would have admitted that what he was doing was a sin. What we have today is not only immoral behavior, but a loss of moral criteria.” Veith, G. E., Jr. (1994b). Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. Crossway, p 18.

In other words, “sin” no long carries the weight it did in the past. While sins like adultery, stealing, and so forth have been around from the earliest descendants of Adam and Eve, we live in a time when the conscience of the broader public has become so seared, that it is hardly a thought any more. Not only have individuals become numb to the guilt of sin, but a majority are losing awareness that sin exists in the first place.

Many of us feel like this is unprecedented in our lifetimes and we are somewhat correct, but this is not truly unprecedented in history. In Biblical history, we are told of an age, in fact multiple ages of Israel’s history when everyone did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 21;25, Judges 17:6, Isaiah 5;21, Deuteronomy 12:8, Jeremiah 11:8).

Over the past few generations in America, we lived with a consensus about many sins being wrong and deserving of public denouncement. Having a child out of wedlock, adultery, public drunkenness, and other sins were enough for someone to lose some value in their public reputation. While still treated as a person in the image of God, their sins were considered a warning sign that all was not well for them.

Today, such sins do not produce such a response from the public at large, but are so commonplace that their acknowledgement in the public sphere produces little to no response. We have lost the criteria as a society to look upon such sins as even being sins. Loss of this mooring leads us inevitably to seeking more and more after what is right in our own eyes.

To recover from such a loss of moral criteria, we must first discern where we went off the tracks with our beliefs, our thoughts and feelings, and our practices individually and collectively. Then we must systematically shine the light of God’s truth on them, exposing them so we can restore this public consensus.

True Health: Biblical Values to Uphold In Whole Person Health – Part 2 – New Testament

September 30, 2023 Eric Potter Doc-sy

New Testament Word Study Regarding God’s View of Man’s Health

Having surveyed God’s view of health in the Old Testament through these word studies in a prior essay (LINK), we can approach the New Testament with an initial foundation and consider how various New Testament Greek terms deepen our understanding of God’s view of man’s health. A variety of Greek words convey God’s perspective on mankind’s whole person health. While each word shares a sense of wellness, obvious nuances mean that these terms convey different angles on how we should view our health. Each offers some particular insight, but taken all together the group provides a more robust understanding of what God wants us to know about whole person health.

We will walk through hygianio (hygiaínō), therapeuo (therapeúō), iaomai (ee-ah’-om-ahee), and sozo (sode’-zo). With each, a definition and some examples of how each is expressed in the New Testament help to shape our understanding of the design God is instructing us to pursue for whole person health.

First, Thayer’s bible dictionary defines hygianio as:

To be sound, to be well, to be in good health
Metaphorically: of Christians whose opinions are free from any mixture of error
1. Of one who keeps the graces and is strong

In this definition, we have soundness, a “soundness”, or holding together in wellness. While the metaphorical use regarding opinions without error does address doctrine and truth issues, the implication is that this word implies lack of error or lack of illness in terms of health. A few verses from the New Testament provide a clearer backdrop of how this word was applied to physical health as well as spiritual health.

In 3 John 2, we read that John prays for the letter recipients that they are all in “good health” or hygianio. This wellness or soundness refers to physical health as John immediately says that he hopes their physical wellness matches the prospering of their soul. Hygianio therefore cannot just refer to spiritual health, but John prays that their physical health will be as good as their spiritual health.

Next in Luke 15:27, the parable of the Prodigal son provides another opportunity to consider how hygianio is used to describe the health of the Prodigal son. The father rejoices that the son is back “hygios”, or safe and sound. This suggests a wholeness at least in body if not in body, spirit, and relationship, except for the older brother’s unwillingness to restore his relationship.

In Luke 5:31, we find Jesus meeting in the home of Levi the Tax Collector where He was challenged by pharisees for eating with sinners. Jesus responds “Those who are ‘well’ have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” The primary import is clearly spiritual, but the “well” is this same word, hygianio, and clearly refers to physical wellness in its non-figurative use standing next to “physician”. The word is secondarily used as figurative of the health of the spirit which was his primary target.

In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 3, we find Jesus healing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath. Jesus “restored”, the act being described by a verb form of hygianio, the withered hand, exemplifying the clear use of this word in terms of a physical healing through a spiritual work. We see Jesus caring for physical needs over the rigid rules of the Pharisaical Sabbath keeping.

In the Gospel of John, chapter 5, we read of the encounter between Jesus and the paralyzed man at the pool of Bethesda who hoped to be made “well” by the angel’s stirring of the waters. Verses 4, 6, and 9 use the hygios form of hygianio and clearly refer to a physical healing. The words of the paralyzed man indicate no thought of spiritual or relational health, only a physical healing that he might walk again. Jesus makes him “well” or hygios and enables him to walk again.

In each of these uses of hygianio or a form of the word, we find an aspect of physical healing or soundness. Some illness is removed or someone rejoices that no illness nor unsoundness is present. We find both Jesus and the disciples expressing pleasure in the physical health of others. This implies that we as Christians today, following Christ and the disciples examples, can rejoice and be glad in other’s health. It would seem from these examples that working to restore health and finding joy in physical health are both good goals.

Second, we consider the Greek therapeuo, {ther a pe úō}, which Thayer’s dictionary defines as:

To serve, do service
To heal, cure, restore to health.

In this definition we have a picture of someone being made well through an action performed upon them. It focuses more attention on the work of the one healing or curing, but still conveys that the recipient is made well. We see the word therapeuo used at least 30 times in the Gospels alone and 5 times in Acts. A few verses from the New Testament provide a clearer backdrop of how this word was applied to physical health.

In Matthew, several uses of therapeuo and its derivatives provide insight. In Matthew 4:23-24, Jesus ministered to crowds who had ‘every disease and every affliction” as He went about “healing” them. No one can argue that He was not addressing physical illnesses although many who oppose the supernatural working of Christ have tried to say that He used psychological means to cure psychological illnesses in these individuals who only looked like they had physical illnesses. In reality this was clearly a removal of at least physical illness in many cases, but given the mention of demon oppression, it could sometimes include spiritual healing as well. The two aspects were not mutually exclusive one of the other. In contrast, the word used for disease or sickness in these verses was the word nosos, which clearly referred to physical illness elsewhere in Matthew 8:17, 9:35, and 10:1. Clearly, physical healing was a work done by Christ and even delegated to the apostles in Matthew 10:1.

We see connections between spiritual health or the Gospel and physical health in two other quick examples of therapeuo from the New Testament. In Mark 6:5, Mark reports that Jesus healed fewer sick people in Nazareth due to the state of their faith. An unhealthy spirit, one in which the people did not have faith in Christ for whatever reason, prevented their geographic area from receiving as many physical healing works in it. In Luke 9:1, like Matthew 10:1, we read how Jesus gave power to His disciples to heal physical illness as He was sending them out to preach the Gospel. Spiritual power was the source of physical healing and physical healing commonly accompanied spiritual healing.

Third, we look at iaomai, (ee-ah’-om-ahee) which is defined int Thayer’s dictionary as:

to cure, heal
to make whole
to free from errors and sins, to bring about (one’s) salvation

In this definition we see the nature of the work being done whether to remove a disease by healing/curing or making whole or to remove spiritual disease of sin and thus bring out someone’s salvation. A few verses from the New Testament provide a clearer backdrop of how this word was applied to health.

Two verses from Matthew bring out connections between spiritual and physical health using this word iaomai. In Matthew 13:15, Jesus quotes the book of Isaiah that if the people would turn spiritually, that God would “iaomai” them. Isaiah had used the word raphe which we studied from the Old Testament in part one of this word study. Matthew intended to convey the same sense of physical healing by iaomai as was in raphe. Then in Matthew 15:28, we read how the faith of the Canaanite woman led to the healing of her daughter. Her daughter apparently suffered both spiritually and physically as the physical healing occurred secondary to the removal of demonic oppression. The driving out of the demon was necessary for the physical healing to take place. In God’s usual pattern we see physical healing being important yet connected with spiritual health.

Another two examples help paint a fuller picture of the use of iaomai in the New Testament. In Luke 9, Jesus is sending out the disciples to preach and to heal. When he describes the healing in verse 6, he uses iaomai. They were doing both spiritual and physical healings for the people. Then in I Peter 2:24, Peter is explaining how the people are healed or iaomai by the wounds of Jesus. Given Christ’s primary role in salvation, this example appears to refer primarily if not solely to spiritual healing. This particular word, iaomai, for to cure or to heal or to make whole could refer to spiritual or to physical healing or to both aspects together as parts of a whole work.

Fourth and final, we find the word sozo (sode’-zo) defined by Thayer’s dictionary:

1. To save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction

2. …(not pertinent)

3. to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health.

Two examples from the Gospel of Matthew begin to fill out how this word was used. In Matthew 9:21-22 Jesus interacts with the woman who had an issue of blood and had touched His garments seeking healing. She clearly had a physical illness from this description which received a physical healing from Jesus. In Matthew 15:29-31 we read about the crucifixion of Jesus. The people are asking how Jesus could have saved others but could not sozo himself. There was an inclusion of Jesus saving his own physical life, but there seems a fuller sense that does not exclude Jesus saving Himself from the punishment by crucifixion for wrongdoing. An irony was intended in that the Savior could not sozo or save himself from physical punishment that was resulting from spiritual guilt.

The word is again used to refer to physical healing in Luke 17:19 where Jesus cleanses 10 lepers. He removes their leprosy, obviously a physical healing, and this is translated as “made you well”. Yet, in Titus 3:5 a description of Jesus’ work is given in which he is said to sozo us in the washing of regeneration. This seems a clear example of using the word to describe spiritual healing rather than physical healing. Then in James 5:15 we again read of a physical use of the word in that the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick. We are left with an overall impression that sozo may be used to describe the work of either physical or spiritual healing or when both types of healing are involved.

For the Greek words, hygianio, therapeuo, iaomai, and sozo a New Testament picture of health forms in which the physical and the spiritual are not fully separated when we see examples of these words referring to physical health or healing in one place and spiritual in others. Given the number of times we see Jesus healing physical illness in the Gospels as these words are used, we get a sense of the importance of physical health in addition to spiritual health as well as a connectedness.

Next in the series… Part 3: Various Scripture Addressing God’s Approach to Man’s Health

The Basics of Family Covenant: A Creational Ordinance

September 26, 2023 Eric Potter Covenant

By Jennifer Potter

Before subsequently interweaving throughout the covenants, marriage and by extension family, find their inauguration within the Creation Account. Over the course of the first two chapters in Genesis, covenant relationship defines not only God’s providential relationship to His creatures, but He also establishes covenant relationship as the means by which His image bearers are connected to one another. In man’s brief period of innocence, their beneficent Creator provides for them the most fundamental of human social relationships – covenantal marriage- establishing from their union the plan of covenant family as the means by which humanity fills the earth. Commentator Matthew Henry observed that “marriage is one of only…two ordinances instituted in [man’s] innocency” (1). Highlighting the significance of covenantal ties between humanity, God establishes the fundamental social institutions of covenantal marriage and by extension the covenantal family as a part of His “very good” creational order establishing for all time the norms by which society best functions.

In studying the social structures instituted at Creation, Biblical standards for marriage and family emerge in their covenantal context. In general, the first chapter in Genesis gives an overview of the Creation week when on the final day of creative activity, God determines to form His image bearer giving humans a crowning significance as the Psalmist declares, “You have made him [mankind] a little lower than the heavenly beings, and crowned him with glory and honor” (ESV, Psalm 8:5). Upon his image bearers, the Creator declares blessing using language common in biblical covenantal structures, the ‘is-ought’ blessing, meaning an assured promise is stated but a responsibility requiring active participation also is presented. This blessed responsibility reads, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion “…over every living thing that moves on the earth,” giving covenantal responsibility to the man and woman to fill the earth with other image bearers that they may care for the Creation as their Creator cares for them (ESV, Genesis 1:28). Through God’s explicit design and blessing, the covenantal family is made the primary means of both filling the earth and caring for it. By the end of the chapter, the fundamental relationships of marriage and family have been established as part of a covenantal and well-managed created order.

These fundamental relationships are further expounded upon in the extended retelling of man’s creation in Genesis 2. This account gives more details on the covenantal nature of the relationship between the man and the woman. In summary, God creates the first man Adam giving him substance formed out of the dust, existence through His breath, residence in the garden, blessings through provisions and beauty, employment through garden keeping and animal classification, relationship with Himself through covenant, and covenantal sacraments in the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Having situated man in a perfect garden, God relates to Adam, who as Matthew Henry asserts dwelt in an easy and honorable state, placing this man under the Covenant of Works and giving him full ability to carry out his responsibilities in paradise (2,3).

However, even in these ideal conditions, God saw that Adam needed a helper of like substance for to be alone was not good (ESV, Genesis 2: 18). In Hebrew the word helper literally means “one who helps” with the Greek Septuagint equivalent translating directly as “a helper” (4,5). This helper was not to be a subordinate being but one able to provide for the man that which God Himself recognized as needful even in His good Creation. Of note, the Greek word for helper used in this account is also used in the New Testament referring to God Himself as Helper suggesting the strong positive role man’s helpmeet was given. Hebrews 13:6 reads: “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear” [italics mine] (ESV). So, God planned to provide man with relationship not only to Himself but also to a strong helper equal in honor to the man and indeed both distinct and yet a part of man; for God does not again use the dust of the earth to fashion this helper. Rather, He uses the body of the man. Taking the flesh of the man by using a rib from his side God creates one equal in significance, one to be beloved and protected at his side (1). In a very real sense, they are of one flesh. Word study is again valuable here. This word flesh is from the Hebrew word meaning “flesh or blood relations” with the Greek Septuagint equivalent meaning “flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts” (6,7). These words shed light on the deep relational connection established by the Creator’s hand between His image bearers. In the account, following the formation of man’s help meet, the Lord leads the woman in presentation to the man almost as if He is “the officiating minister” joining the two together by sovereign appointment (8). Here, in the fresh beauty of the garden, the Creator positioned Adam and his wife under the marriage covenant which in a sense fits or at least reflects the definition of covenants God initiates between Himself and humankind: “a bond-in-blood sovereignly administered” (9). This similarity in covenantal elements emphasizes the inter-relationship between the vertical covenant and the horizontal covenant established at creation. In this first horizontal covenant, the Sovereign Creator initiated, arranged, and oversaw the structure establishing it at the dawn of humanity’s existence placing marriage under man’s covenantal responsibilities to Himself while providing for man’s needs.

After the presentation of the newly formed covenantal helper, the man responds in joyful acknowledgment of God’s provision in this one woman declaring her “…. bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (ESV, Genesis 2:23) acknowledging God’s masterful answer to his need for companionship and succor. Matthew Henry comments in “…designing Adam a help meet for him, he made him one wife…And wherefore did he make but one woman for one man? It was that he might seek a godly seed- a seed of God…a seed that she bear the image of God , be employed in the service of God, and be devoted to his glory and honor” (10) In this, the second chapter of Genesis, God establishes the marriage covenant between one man and one woman, a creational ordinance acknowledged by Christ in the New Testament and tied to the one flesh union between the man and woman who are given the responsibility to have children instituting the covenant family for as Henry also concludes “the raising up of godly seed…is one of the great ends of the institution of marriage” (10). Therefore, after the creation of the woman, God directly inaugurates not only the marriage covenant but also the family lines by which man’s ongoing covenantal responsibilities will move forward. Through the marriage covenant and this end of bearing seed, Adam and his wife will carry out the blessed responsibility of being fruitful, filling the earth, and having dominion.

Being established prior to the Fall, covenantal marriage, with the resulting family, stands out as the first horizontal covenant inaugurated in Scripture. Adam, as the representative head of humanity (11) and the woman as his help meet are covenanted together by God’s explicit design that together they may obey the stipulations of the covenant with their God and fulfill their responsibilities toward one another participating in the blessing of filling the earth with godly seed who will care for the creation. God as covenant initiator, sets forth in the creation account the pattern for man’s first covenant with woman in marriage.

This covenantal pattern continues as a fundamental aspect of subsequent covenants after man’s fall into sin such that the marriage covenant and the family born from it place covenantal responsibilities upon all mankind. Such subsequently repeated covenantal responsibilities apply not only to a man and woman in a marriage covenant but also to any group of men and women as a church or society in regards to honoring and protecting this marriage covenant. In the New Testament, Jesus [LP1] places this responsibility upon humanity in general: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (ESV, Matthew 19: 6b). A society’s repudiation of God’s fundamental covenantal design puts them at odds with the Creator of the Universe- a very precarious place indeed.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NIV, Accessed July 9,2023.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NIV, Accessed July 9, 2023
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VII:II. and IX:II. Trinity Hymnal (2021), (p. 852 & 854). 20^th Edition. Great Commission Publications.
Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org. Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland. https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/05828.html, Accessed July 11, 2023.
Old / New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org. Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland. https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/998.html, Accessed July 11, 2023.
Old / New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org. Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland. https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/4561.html, Accessed July 9, 2023.
Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org. Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland. https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/01320.html, July 10, 2023.
Edith, D. (1963). Family Living in the Bible (p. 5). Harper and Row Publishers.
Robertson, O. P. (1980). The Christ of the Covenants (p. 15). Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%202&version=NIV, accessed July 9, 2023
Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 16. Trinity Hymnal (2021), (870). 20^th Edition. Great Commission Publications.

The Changing Reasons We Gather Today – Part 2

September 23, 2023 Eric Potter Gather Foundations

After part one of this essay addressed the effects of easy geographical mobility, of excesses in extracurricular activities, and of age segregation on the development of family bonds, we now look at other forces and trends of contemporary society which press upon why we gather and with whom we gather. First, we consider the effects of vicarious sports’ influence on our lives. Second, we examine how the changing priority of finding life fulfillment in experiences alters the depth of relationships in gathering. Third, we consider how expectations for achievement in life affect our gathering in the setting of labor. We then further consider how these various societal trends influence the gathering of friendships and church relationships. This all prepares us for the next essay in the series considering what true gathering would look like if we overcome the negative societal influences on gathering.

Beyond the factors in part one of the essay, we also see the effects of the changing values of society as a whole and of its subgroups on why people gather. The first example considers the influence of vicarious college and professional sports on why we gather. While society has historically always gathered around forms of entertainment, our society has modified the Coliseum of Rome into our modern stadiums where we idolize the physically talented and gifted athletes. The dedication of many to “their team” may extend beyond simple entertainment into obsessions. Beyond the physical gathering for such games and competitions, the mass media’s ability for live coverage enables physically separated millions not only to share an event simultaneously, but furthermore to choose from a multitude of such events with just a click of a remote. The lure of professional sports and the allegiance to one’s college alma mater often gather people for nothing more substantial than this common interest of which they are at best only a vicarious spectator. At worst, the obsession can reap enough of their time and energy to lead to neglect of other parts of their life.

Second, some priorities for one’s life fulfillment have also changed. With less emphasis on the creation of lasting worth with one’s time, activities become more and more focused on the experiences of pleasure. While creating memories with one’s family during the experience of a vacation are good, they should have more lasting value than just the repetitive need to find another experience which outdoes the last one. This drive for experience manifests itself in the following ways. In the travel industry, marketing naturally sells to this drive with promises of experiences to remember but the drive spills over into other areas of life that are not as natural to this pursuit. College life can become more about the experience than the education it is meant to instill as college campuses compete to have the coolest recreation center or the most robust social life. For the older crowd planned communities promise all you need for daily life with every convenience in one pre-packaged neighborhood. For some, the pursuit of some experience drives their choices and adversely influences their gathering away from interest in more enduring priorities.

Third, expectations for achievement in life have been radically altered from early childhood on up to adulthood. Rather than the olden days of rewarding those who excelled in a sport or at school, the emphasis has shifted to being sure all feel a part of the team with participation trophies and grading systems that avoid making someone feel bad for not doing as well as another. While competition inherently grants some reward to those who win, more and more emphasis is placed on just showing up. We must wonder if this trend in expectations is playing a role in what we see as these children grow into adults. As adults, many of today’s employees may walk into a new position expecting immediate respect and the rewards of prolonged service before they have paid their dues. They may wonder why work seems harder at the bottom in starting out. They then express their frustrations without understanding their supervisor’s confusion at their expectations. In gathering with others in the business to produce and create, they may focus on what they are getting out of it. While admittedly, some past generations could go to the extreme of overworking, some in this generation seem to want the benefits of having invested years into a work position without actually having to invest those years.

The Impact of These Trends Beyond Family

These societal forces and trends not only impact on the gathering of family, but also upon how friends gather. While common interests and relational affections still bring different people together, the bonds can still be weakened by ease of mobility and the superficiality of why many gather. When families are moving every few years, they do not have as much time to deepen relationships outside the family. Relationships of shorter duration can be easier to let go of as the work of maintaining such relationships at a distance outweighs the work of just finding new ones. With the fast pace of life on top of this mobility, without some intentional effort, friendships can remain shallow. In these situations, inevitable differences will have a greater chance of long-term division as there is less strength in the bond to prevent separation.

Neither do the superficial activities of life focused on entertainment offer the deeper bonds of achieving worthy goals together. The strongest bonds of sports participation primarily come with the teamwork that wins a competition at some level, yet most of these “group wins” fade in memory as time passes and more important challenges of life arise, making the district and regional championships of past decades just a fleeting memory that few others remember. As we age, we may gather around entertainment interests like sports or the latest band, but take away that superficiality and bonds quickly weaken without deeper roots. Over time, more and more of the gathering is spent with those with whom one agrees on the peripherals of life rather than agreeing upon core values, the ground more fertile for deeper roots.

Churches are not left unaffected by societal forces and are not always able to overcome the secondary differences when core values are not as deeply shared. Being hindered in growing deeper roots by the ease of geographical mobility and less time together due to the pressures of contemporary life, they may succumb to division by secondary differences. Simultaneously, in the interest of growing the church in numbers, the seeker sensitive approach often dilutes out the more committed Christ followers with those more aligned with the world. This leads to more compromises and can begin to focus more on activities rather than doctrinal unity, setting the stage for divisions when differences eventually arise. When the majority in a church body seek church for what they will get out of the experience rather than the worship of God, sooner or later the secondary differences with overcome the strength of the shallow shared values, driving the “body” apart.

In the end, the practice of gathering in today’s society has moved towards patterns that hinder deeper relationships and hinder unity over deeper values. The patterns of easy geographical mobility and age segregated activities combine with the seeking of superficial experiences in commonalities like sports teams make today’s society less enduring. At this point, conserving such a declining culture and its consensus is pointless. Instead, a restoration to God’s design for relationships under covenant around deeper meaning is needed. Coming essays will focus on this work of restoration.

Next in the series… True Gathering By a Different Standard.

Present School Shootings and Gun Rights

September 20, 2023 Eric Potter Current Inks Gun Rights, School

(Written before 2023 Tennessee Special Session, but will apply to January 2024 Legislative Session)

Middle Tennessee drank from a bitter cup in 2023, experiencing what other communities have previously endured with the tragedy of a school shooting. While we may never know the full story of the shooter’s angst and anger, we know that lives were taken and we know that families continue to mourn. We mourn with them, and extend our sympathy to their pain. As a community and state, we collectively look for solutions to prevent such a tragedy from occurring again. Some call for gun control as the solution. Some call for more gun freedoms as the solution. The spectrum of proposed solutions extends in multiple directions from this overly simplistic dichotomy as everyone wants the same thing, no more school shootings.

In response, our governor, Bill Lee, called a Special Session of the legislature to address such an extraordinary situation. As with the majority of politicians, he and others in his camp believe that government intervention offers the best opportunity for prevention. No one wants to be accused of doing nothing as the potential for another loss of life could be in the making. Neither does anyone want to react rashly and somehow lead to either similar or different harms to our children in the school system. In the midst of these competing priorities and inclinations the state legislators find themselves as we, the people of Tennessee, watch and attempt to avoid further harm from resulting.

With hopes to come out of this tragedy in a better position to protect lives than when we entered it, I offer the application of principles in guiding you and our legislators towards real solutions. I am not privy to any special knowledge of the events nor in any position to implement significant changes at schools. However, I am a citizen of this state who directly or indirectly could be impacted by unwise legislation and who wants my children and your children to grow safely into old age rather than meeting their demise at the hands of an vengeful shooter.

Without special insight or knowledge and without influence, I might choose to focus energy elsewhere, but I want each of you to grow in your wisdom so that we as a people can influence those who have the knowledge and/or the power.???? In order to do so, I offer principles from one of our core values and another principle of general wisdom as they can be applied to the question of “what do we do now?” Those principles are first noted in the core values promoted on this site before suggesting they be applied to the school shooter and its aftermath. They include 1) Truth Seeking and 2) Considering the ramifications of our response.

First, in facing the choices of how we or our leaders should respond we must seek truth. Partial truth risks inadequate or even harmful responses. We should ask ourselves and others for a full picture of not only what happened that tragic day but also for a full picture of the wider situation of school safety. Countless questions need answering regarding what led a young woman to plan the murder of those she gunned down. We don’t have those answers and are thus hindered in our response. We know a good deal about the actual events themselves from security cameras and can greatly appreciate the rapid response of the police force in limiting further loss of life. On other hand we don’t know whether others with guns would or would not have bought this tragedy to an end even sooner, but that has been the case with active shooters in other situations.

With the tragedy in mind, we now hear calls for various responses to the question of school safety. The various responses from both sides of the political spectrum which get the most attention repeat simplistic responses of either more guns or less guns. We must again seek the whole truth by methodically evaluating what we do know about the safety of schools. We must better understand the full problem which encompasses multiple issues like bullying, mental health, school facility locks and alarms, staff training, the juvenile justice system, and more. The breadth and depth of the issues leading to this shooting seem difficult to exhaustively comprehend but we must do our best before taking a reflexive action.

We must submit to this first principle of truth seeking or risk a worse response being implemented.

Second, we must consider all ramifications of the response or responses we choose whether individually or collectively. Every choice we make first focuses on a primary outcome. In this case, we all agree that we want children to be safe from armed attackers. If it were that simple, there would be no debate and no need for this essay. While the primary outcome may be first in view, rarely do our choices impact solely on the primary outcome without impacting secondary and tertiary outcomes. This is especially true when legislation is enacted which applies across hundreds of schools across our state and thousands of children in those schools. While situations do arise which necessitate such broad and sweeping actions, still we must consider those secondary impacts.

Some specific questions include the following:

Will more guns on school campus truly decrease the occurrence of school violence?

Will the mental health of children be adversely affected by the presence of guns?

Will more locks and security features interfere with any other aspects of school safety?

Will more money for counselors and mental health professionals bring more federal control of state schools?

Will the worldviews of mental health professionals conflict with the views of parents?

Will stricter gun laws interfere with constitutional freedoms?

Will limits on freedoms lead to other societal adverse effects down the road?

I could go on, but the point is made that legislative short-sighted reflexes which echo the reflexive voices of the media arising from the extremes of political opinion may cause us to miss the bigger picture, creating either a larger problem than we began with or new problems which did not exist prior to our response. We must seek as much truth regarding the problem before proposing a solution. We must then consider the full ramifications of that solution. While many like Governor Bill Lee apparently believe that me must act quickly with a Special Session (and many in the legislature seem to agree despite their claims to the contrary), the legislature is moving forward in the dark and our children and our freedoms are at risk when they needlessly stumble.

Ask yourself these and other questions. Ask our legislators to answer these questions. Demand an answer from yourself and from them.

Conformed to Jesus – R.C. Sproul

September 19, 2023 Eric Potter Quotes

“To be conformed to Jesus, we must first begin to think as Jesus did. We need the “mind of Christ.” We need to value the things He values and despise the things He despises. We need to have the same priorities He has. We need to consider weighty the things He considers weighty.”― R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God

R.C. Sproul understood something that many today miss in their getting caught up in the daily flow of life. He understood that belonging to Christ meant becoming like the one who redeemed us from sin and death, including not only our beliefs about reality, but in our values, our thoughts and feelings, and our actions. If we truly believe that Christ is the Son of God and that we owe all our being and all our salvation to His work, everything about us should change from our previously unredeemed state.

This “mind of Christ” must go beyond superficial make-up replacing our old desires and preferences inclined towards sin. It must penetrate deeper and deeper to remake us in the image of God in man, best exemplified by Christ himself, our elder brother. We must think about ourselves, about our lifestyles, about our relationships, and more as Christ would have us think.

Our desires should become more and more pleasing to Him and His desires, thus leading us to feel differently that those who do not follow Him. When we value what He values, we will prioritize different things in our daily life, and thus act differently than the world around us. We will be concerned about what Christ is concerned about.

We will be changed inside out. We will resemble Christ not simply because we go to church or make a profession of faith, but because our new natures of beliefs and values will pour out of us naturally. We are to respond to Christ’s calling us to become like Him by submitting to this sanctifying work in all our beliefs, our thoughts and feeling, and our practice individually and collectively. R.C. had this right on target.

The Changing Reasons We Gather Today – Part 1

September 16, 2023 Eric Potter Gather

As John Maxwell once emphasized, “Change is inevitable. Growth is optional.” With the march of time, individuals change, families change, and every level of life changes in some way. In today’s world, add to that inevitability an antipathy towards tradition and an attraction to the novel and you have a strong force for change. Change in and of itself is neither good nor bad. The moral value of a change arises from what is changed to what it is changed. A prior bad can be changed to a good when pain is relieved and health is restored. A prior good can be changed into a bad when one’s happiness is shattered by a loved one’s death. Society inevitably changes over time, but not inevitably for the better. The generalizations in part one of this essay apply to how the reasons for gathering have changed in families and other settings today. Part two looks at further societal trends and their impacts on the gathering of families as well as for friends, co-workers, and churches.

While generalizations in this essay do not apply universally across our culture, they do reflect some of the more common patterns and trends within the culture. Anyone will find it difficult to argue against the reality of these changes in our society over preceding decades. While there are a variety of reasons for gathering and a variety of settings, for the most part today we have all been influenced by society’s trends as well as technological advances (these advances may be addressed in future essays). While in one sense we are more connected than ever, in another sense we may feel more disconnected than before. We can share more information with more people but can feel more separated, even marginalized from others.

With this in mind, an evaluation of the changes in how we gather must be measured by something other than just being different than before. We must measure it by a higher standard which does not change in its principles. We must consider God’s call to how we gather and compare it to today’s gathering. Having in the last essay looked at how we gathered in the past, we look now at the description of how we gather today. In the essay following part two of this one, we consider God’s principles for “true” gathering.

In the most basic setting of gathering, the family, familial ties still bind although in today’s society, they are somewhat weakened by various factors including geographical mobility, children’s extracurricular activities, and general age segregation. The ease of geographic mobility, the fact that anyone can move significant distances away from other family members inevitably influences the tightness of such bonds. While the familial expectation to remain geographically nearby is not entirely extinct, the desire for successive generations to make a name for themselves in a new location seems more prominent. As adult children move themselves away, they may retain deeply heartfelt connections with the family members of their early life, yet their own children will not have the same opportunity to develop closeness to grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins when living hours away. Deeper layers of shared memories cannot accumulate when physical interactions only occur with holidays. Over one or more generations, familial bonds can weaken in this age of easy mobility where life and employment opportunities pull families apart.

Combining this with the fact that children spend more and more time either at school or some extracurricular activity, early familial bonds do not connect as deeply for many families. Under these circumstances, as children age, they spend more and more time with peers rather than family. The opportunities to interact with extended family like grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins diminishes as more and more time is spent in practicing and preparing for the competitions which come with the activities. Even when the extended family gathers to watch such sports and other extracurricular events, the focus is more on the child and the event. While the presence of family at a child’s events do nurture a child’s sense of being loved, the events can overtake the bonding. Unless a family chooses to participate in the child’s practice of the activity, the child may become overly influenced by their peers sharing in that activity. These activities are not inherently bad but must be consciously balanced with the development of the child’s role in the family. Allowing the child to become the centerpiece of the family through excessive focus on the child’s extracurricular activities can be detrimental to deepening of family bonds and to the development of the child’s future view of their own family.

The separation of age groups along activities can continue as children grow, departing home for college life. Each stage of life can become focused on one’s age group give or take a couple of years. In such an age separated society, values become shaped more by peers at times, than by family and its family traditions. Teens focus on their own age group sometimes to the detriment or neglect of younger siblings. Even at the other end of life, retirees begin to gather around other retirees in retirement communities. This reflects the generational separation that is deepening in our age segregated society.

With these interactions between the ease of mobility, the growing influence of the extracurricular lives of children, and the tendencies towards age segregation, the strength of family cohesion may diminish. When time together is minimized for one reason or another, in the short term or the long term, familial bonds cannot develop as deeply and as strongly. While gathering may still happen at holidays, the “gathering” into one family may not actually occur unless effort is applied to do so. In part 2 of this essay, examples of other societal forces pushing against family cohesion are discussed further as well as the effects of those same forces on other types of gathering.

Next in the series… Part Two of The Changing Reasons We Gather Today.

Sexual Education According to the Elite

September 13, 2023 Eric Potter Current Inks

“We are not in Kansas anymore”

We want to think the best of others, to trust what they say and give them the benefit of the doubt. That works well when we share similar values and in personal relationships in which trust has been built over time. This approach preserves family relationships and friendships. However, large institutions or large swaths of a population like the “ruling elites” do not deserve such a benefit from us. We do not know them personally nor do we have the same foundational worldview as can be seen in the ideals they set forth for people to follow. In fact, it is dangerous to the health of our families and society to be anything but skeptical about their intentions. This is very clearly seen in the movement promoting the “sexual rights of children,” yes children. We must not foolishly believe their attempts to sound noble instead recognizing their vain ideology and employing covenantal thinking in combating their attempts to further corrupt God’s image bearers.

I urge you to read the attached article Sexual Education According to the Elite with eyes wide open. In their own words and written plans, these entities both institutional and personal are pushing for further corruption of your children. Because of their false ideologies, those pushing for these supposed rights are proud of their efforts, shameless before the face of God.

However, reading is not enough as you will be tempted to dismiss the Epoch Times article as blowing things out of proportion or as taking the statements out of context. You will want to brush aside the concerns of pedophilia and sexualizing children as conspiracy theories which no normal person in the world would ever want to actually do. A quick review of THIS LINK from The Children’s Center for Psychiatry, Psychology, & Related Services should dispel any notion that our society has a big problem. With 3.5 million children between 8^th and 11^th grade reporting sexual contact from an adult during a survey, how can anyone deny that the problem is more than conspiracy theory. While the majority of adults in our school system do not hold such views, a considerable number do (Schlitz 2017). While the left-leaning Wikipedia is not my favorite source, they give one more reason to read with eyes wide open as even they have to acknowledge that a significant number of organizations across the world do advocate for children sexual rights with adults (LINK).

To fully encourage you to read the Epoch Times article and to do so with open eyes, I will offer a few glimpses of the challenges they present. Starting at the 30-thousand-foot view, they boil the international effort down into two foci, one promoting comprehensive sex education and the other that promotes the view that children are sexual beings with rights to sexual pleasure. While either effort by various organizations is clearly detrimental to children and to parental rights, the combination synergizes to create an even more dangerous situation in which children are exposed to sexual topics before they are emotionally able to handle them and granted freedom to make their own choices out from under the oversight of their parents.

The advocates for children’s sexual rights have canned responses to those who object to their plans. As anyone expresses concern that these efforts will begin to engage in earlier sexual activity and experience adverse consequences, those pushing sex education will claim that such work delays sexual activity and increases the practice of safe sex. (Statistics noted later in the Epoch Times article refute this assertion.) Further, they present themselves as caring advocates of children in general although they have little to no respect for the parental role of protection for the individual child in the family context. While I cannot speak to the intentions of every person in every organization that promotes sex education, the overall patterns of the movement do not encourage me to trust them. Their ideological worldview includes the belief that sex before marriage is optimal and sex with and for children can be freeing. In order to do so, they ignore any categories of sin and redefine what it means to protect the weak- among other ideological choices.

While they may give lip service to preventing detrimental affects to children who have sex, these are usually such things as prevention of STD’s. How they plan to make children willing to consent to such inappropriate age-related behavior includes destroying family relationships and changing the definition of mental health in children- i.e. normalizing trans-sexual behavior and desire. Their ideology holds to a new truth of their own making, rejecting Biblical morays of any kind.

The United Nations acts as primary driver for much of this effort and guides the direction with a document from its U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) called “International Technical Guidance on Sexual Education.” Working with the World Health Organization and the U.N. Women and the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the want to “’equip children and young people’ with knowledge and to empower them to ‘develop respectful social and sexual relationships.’” The United Nations wants these policies to be enforced upon all children in all nations as one of their reports cited by the Epoch Times explains.

While proclaiming that they want to promote the well-being of children across the world, the toolkit they offer “teaches that some children aren’t “comfortable being identified as male or female based on their sex organs.” They teach the children that they have to right to consent or not consent to sexual activity and this activity may occur in the settings of dating, marriage, or even “commercial sex work”. Again, these values are far from being consistent with nearly all the readers of this article.

While the United Nations promotes this work of sex education, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) works with other organizations to “frame ‘child sexual rights’ as ‘human rights.’” They base their declaration partly from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC). They view children as having an “evolving capacity” to make decisions for themselves. A review and deeper understanding of the UN CRC reveals that the Elites in charge of that effort do not believe parents have children’s best interest in mind and the government should enforce the children’s rights to autonomous decisions. The IPPF document states that “Young people are sexual beings,” and “They have sexual needs, desires, fantasies, and dreams” on its opening page. “It asserts children can make decisions about sex based on their maturity, free from parental ‘interference.’”

At what point in the history of the IPPF, should it be given any benefit of the doubt based on its ongoing practice of encouraging sex outside marriage and abortion. Its founder advocated the use of abortion against other races. It continues to promote abortion up to and after the birth of a child. The Epoch Times article also shared the experience of April Gallart while lobbying the UN. She found resistance to parental rights their including the intense effort to remove the words “mother and father” from a document. The UN’s proclamations promoting children’s rights to have sex at any age is exactly what it says without the taint of any conspiracy theories.

At this point, you cannot click away and hide your eyes from the dramatic effort by Elites in the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and other groups to remake our children into sexual beings unhindered by Biblical morals. If there are no limits, then all, including pedophilia is permissible. Trauma rebranded as Rights will make for a docile society willing to go along to survive the next day while at the same time fulfilling the deviant desires of wicked adults.

We are not in Kansas anymore and should not keep pretending that this is really happening. Pray for wisdom and opportunity. Speak truth to your neighbors and our leaders. Reject the claims that they are just wanting the best for our children. Protect your children and grandchildren. God REQUIRES it.

Primary Article:

Global Network Promotes “Sexual Rights” for Children. (n.d.). The Epoch Times. Retrieved September 3, 2023, from https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/global-network-promotes-sexual-rights-for-children-5455257 Accessed September 3, 2023.

Other citations:

Schiltz, R. (2017, July 11). Sexual Abuse by Teachers is on the Rise – The Children’s Center for Psychiatry, Delray Beach, FL. The Children’s Center for Psychiatry, Psychology, & Related Services. https://childrenstreatmentcenter.com/sexual-abuse-teachers/ Accessed September 3, 2023.

List of pedophile advocacy organizations. (2022, April 10). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pedophile_advocacy_organizations

Covenant Defines Relationships

September 12, 2023 Eric Potter Covenant

By Jennifer Potter

“The people shouted with a great shout when they praised the Lord because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid” (Ezra 3:11b, ESV). God’s people celebrated when the foundation of the temple was restored after their long captivity. In like fashion, we earnestly desire to restore our foundations (Is. 58:12), particularly the institution of the family. In order to meet this challenge, we must return to explicit covenantal thinking. We have to our own detriment oft neglected to nurture covenantal thinking; we have ignored the inherent covenantal structure of God’s created order. This failure has led to the significant erosion of foundational truths. Because covenants define relationships in Scripture between the Godhead, between God and creation, between God and man, and between man and man, reestablishing the covenantal foundations in our thinking must undergird any successful return to Biblical cultural foundations.

At the most essential level, a covenant is that which binds the parties involved into a relationship (1, p 6). Samuel Rutherford takes the concept a step further when he asserts, “A covenant speaks something of giving and taking, work and renewal, and mutual engagements between parties…” (2, p 49). In other words, the covenantal created order involves duties and obligations between parties. While a variety of covenantal relationships exist in Scripture, God has set forth the principles and obligations of those relationships in His Word. By adhering to the covenantal structures inherent in the created order, we begin the process of renewal so desperately needed and like Paul become “the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing” (II Corinthians 2:15-16, ESV).

From the beginning, God has related to His creation – even the night and the day – through covenantal structure (Genesis 9:10, 12, 17; Hosea 2:18; Jeremiah 33:25). Rutherford acknowledges that God makes a kind of covenant with not only day and night but also the beasts, urging that they fulfill His commands faithfully (2, p. 53) In addition, God from the beginning related to His image bearers through formal covenant. “By initiating covenants, God never enters into a casual or informal relationship with man” (1, p.7-8). In fact, all mankind, whether they acknowledge it or not, are in a relationship with their Creator under a covenantal framework. Rutherford asserts that “for God to walk among a people and be their God is to be a Covenanting God to them…” (2, p. 314). Of the Christian, Paul writes in II Corinthians 6:16 that “we are the temple of the living God.” He goes on in this chapter to use the language of Leviticus 26:11-12 for the blessings of the covenant and the language of Jeremiah 31:33 and 32:28 in regards to the New Covenant promises. Covenant defines God’s relationship to man in both Old and New Testaments.

Furthermore, the Bible subsumes covenants between men under the Creator-man covenantal relationship, connecting all relationships to Himself. One such example can be found in coordinating Ezekiel 17 and Chronicles 32. In these passages, King Zedekiah makes a covenant with King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon agreeing to be a vassal ruler under him and swearing to the God of Israel to keep this covenant. However, eventually he breaks his covenant agreement by secretly turning to Pharaoh in Egypt for help against his overlord. Through Ezekiel God declares, “I will spread my net over him [Zedekiah], and he shall be taken in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon and enter into judgment with him there for the treachery he has committed against me” (Ezekiel 17:20). Here we see that in breaking the man-to-man (horizontal) covenant, Zedekiah is guilty of treachery against God Himself. Horizontal covenants are encompassed as subordinate elements in the Creator-man covenant.

Additionally, at creation we see instituted the first horizontal covenant, that of marriage-the most fundamental of communal ties. Amid the Creation account, the relationship between the man and his wife is established in covenantal terms with duties and obligations set forth by the Creator (Genesis 1-2). “…The man and the woman, according to God’s own stated intention for them, were created in a just and holy relationship in order that they might mirror the Creator God to his creation,” (3, p 448). Together, in their creaturely perfection, they were a correspondent reflection of the Triune character of God Himself (p. 448) and their duties to their Creator included the duties to one another (3, p.429). While their relationship is established before the Fall, it is also confirmed after the Fall (Genesis 1-3; Matthew 19:4-7). Further, in these first chapters of Genesis, we see the covenantal ties of family established: God commands Adam and Eve to ‘”be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Herein covenantal obligations of this relationship exist and are fleshed out more specifically over the course of God’s revealed Word in passages such as Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Exodus 12:26-27, Psalm 78:5-6, Ephesians 6:1-4, and Colossians 3:20-21. Because God has established His relationship with man via covenant, man’s inter-relational covenants in all their interactions depend upon the covenantal stipulations of the relationship man has with his Creator.

Because of this created dependence, we must begin the work of rebuilding a correct outworking of family relationships within God’s created order by returning to covenantal thinking – both God-ward and man-ward. A foundation of covenantal thinking will help us to frame the positive vision for the family and to combat the negative attacks on this God ordained institution. In doing so, may we be found stewards of the Word of God, able “to discern what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph 5:10), faithfully understanding and applying truth so that the foundations of covenantal family life may be restored leading to a renewed culture.

Bibliography:

Robertson, O. P. (1980). The Christ of the Covenants. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Rutherford, S. (2005). The Covenant of Life Opened (D. C. M. McMahon, Ed.). Puritan Publications.
Reymond, D. R. L. (1998). A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (2nd ed.). Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Bible Translation, English Standard Version.

Politician’s Views of Mental Health Crisis

September 6, 2023 Eric Potter Current Inks Government, Mental Health

Today, people from a variety of backgrounds recognize that we have a deteriorating mental health problem in our society which began before 2020, but has been exacerbated by it. While many will debate the causes, severity, and details of this problem, most admit that we live in an age of heightened sadness and anxiety expressed in a variety of symptoms and diagnoses. We can look together at statistics further below with some general agreement, but as soon as solutions are offered, divergences begin. We may agree that something must change, but how we view the problem determines how we believe that we should respond. While we may be able to address our own or our family’s mental health issues, the collective societal response is best exemplified in the political proposals of those in leadership across various offices. These legislative proposals concerning mental health care demonstrate our leaders fundamentally flawed beliefs about the mental health problem.

Before considering the statistics, my simple definition of mental health according to worldly standards includes someone feeling good about life, having the absence of significant “dis”-ease which hinders functionality and productivity in daily life. This plays out not as a complete absence of emotional fluctuations as with a science fiction robot. Instead mental health is viewed as an spectrum of emotions which includes some degrees of sadness, anxiousness, joy, mourning, and other emotions. The intensities match the context of the situation, and their duration is appropriate for the circumstances without significantly interfering with life functions.

While the world’s general view of mental health tends towards a focus on individual’s absence of “dis”-ease, a Biblical view of health informed by Biblical support emphasizes a Hebrew term “shalom”. Shalom encompasses a more wholistic and positive view of health. It includes physical and mental/spiritual health as well as relational health with God and with other people. This shalom focuses on the presence of “well-being” rather than just the absence of negative symptoms. (for a further explanation of shalom and other Biblical words regarding health, see prior essay).

The world’s approach is to aim against “dis”-ease, rather than towards shalom. If we as Christians believe that God’s goal of mental health for us should be shalom for people as both individuals and in community, then we should evaluate whether the approach taken by the world and by our governmental leaders will lead to shalom or away from it.

Assuming for the moment that the methods of assessment by the authors of the following surveys and studies are valid and portray a relatively accurate picture of the state of mental health in our nation, we see that we truly have a problem. Elsewhere we can address the shortcomings of these methods and the factors they measured, but for now let’s take them at their face value. A December 2022 edition of the journal Pediatrics reported on their comparison of mental health diagnoses reported in primary care between the year prior to COVID beginning in February of 2020 and two periods after this watershed in 2020 and 2021. They found that eating disorder diagnoses in children almost doubled from 9.3 visits per 1000 patients per year to 18.3. They also found the overall annualized mood disorder visits increased from 65.3 per 1000 patients per year to 94.0. Basically, this second statistic indicates that almost 1 in 10 visits in pediatric primary care were for a mood related symptom.

In another study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported by the Pew Center for Research (LINK) in 2021, high school students were evaluated on their self-reports of mental health symptoms. In public and private high schools, 37% reported that their mental health was not good during the pandemic and 44% reported that in the prior year, they had experienced sufficient sadness or hopelessness for 2 weeks or more which led to their stopping some activity.

From the website by the National Alliance on Mental Health (LINK), we find further disturbing statistics. Their “Mental Health by the Numbers” paint enough of a picture that we don’t need to go any deeper. They list the following in a longer list on their site:

About 1 in 5 adults in the U.S. experience some mental illness each year.
About 1 in 6 children between the ages of 6 and 17 years experience mental illness each year.
For children aged 10 to 14 years, suicide is the second leading cause of death.

Numbers like these can tell us that a problem exists and that the current response does not appear adequate. However, they do not necessarily explain how to change this situation. A much deeper look into the root causes of this situation would be needed and is not in the direct scope of this essay. Neither will I provide support for my belief that there will always be some prevalence of mental “dis”-ease in a fallen world where sin is still rampant. Until the New Heavens and New Earth, there will always be some degree of poor mental health. For now we turn our attention to the response of our political leaders and what their response tells us about their view of the problem and its roots.

We can gain a sense of how our Tennessee legislators view mental health by considering a few of the recent bills they proposed in the 2023 Special Session called by Governor Bill Lee for August of 2023. This session is now adjourned and the following bills were not passed, but these bills can be returned or refiled to committee and the Senate or House floor for consideration in the next session in January of 2024. We as a state still must contend with these bills for better or worse and with the worldview foundations of our legislators which underlie these bills’ proposals.

We look first at SB7079 and its companion bill in the state House, HB7035 which proposed loan repayment incentives to mental health professional students in exchange for a required number of years of their service in Tennessee. The beliefs or assumptions of legislators can be deduced from this proposal. They appear to believe that we have a shortage of mental health providers and by raising that number, we can improve mental health. They appear to believe that experts in mental health can alleviate the problem. They appear to believe that more money spent on these experts will alleviate the problem. By not mentioning any other potential resources like family, church, or community, they suggest a belief that these factors are not important especially when considering that no other legislation in the special session addressed those factors. They appear to believe that the views of mental health professionals, which in general conflict with the previously stated Biblical view of health, can solve the problem. I believe these are plausible inferences to make from their proposed bill.

We look next at SB 7032and HB 7066 which proposed the coverage of at least three mental health telemedicine visits to youth. Besides many of the same appearances gleaned from the previous bill, we can add a few more. The legislators appear to believe that children should be able to freely access these services without parental involvement as that is not mentioned in the bill. The bill has no mention of the ability of parents to oversee either the individual mental health care of their children, nor have any say in the collective work of that system. Beyond that, while the bill has possible provisions for further visits beyond three initial visits, the legislators appear to believe that short term interventions can be sufficient for such chronic issues. That is a debatable opinion and this bill, if ever passed, will undermine parental rights.

We next look at SB 7016 and HB 7076 which proposed adding 1 school counselor per every 250 students in the public school system. This would add over 3800 new counseling positions in 1800 schools across the state at a potential cost of about 280 million dollars. Again we see the appearance that legislators believe mental health experts know best for our children and should have access to children potentially without parental involvement or even parental awareness at times. They also appear to believe that schools are a good location for such services. This fits with the central role school frequently plays in the life of families, shaping their activities and relationships around schools’ calendars and connections. (This dovetails with the mindset of the federal government since the schools receiving federal funding are no longer required to get parental consent for mental health services source. LINK.)

We finally look at SB 7074 and HB 7069 which proposes that Tennessee seek federal waivers through Tenncare to receive more federal money to increase mental health services in Tennessee. The legislators proposing this bill clearly believe that federal government money flowing into Tennessee is a good option to meet the need for mental health care. They would appear to not be concerned about any regulations that such money would bring from the federal government that would dictate how Tennessee mental health provider treat Tennesseans with mental health problems.

In summary, our governmental leaders appear to believe in the following principles behind their solutions:

Experts can solve the problem
Government money from the state or federal government can fix the problem
Other resources like family, church, and community do not play a role in a solution
Understanding the root causes of the problem are not necessary for a solution
For children’s mental health, parental and family involvement are not necessary
Without a mention of the contribution of sinful behavior to the issue, they don’t consider it a factor

Are these principles ones which Tennesseans agree with? These foundational principles regarding what our legislators believe about mental health and the relationship between parents and children give me great concern as a Christian parent and a Christian physician. I should not be surprised as much of our society sees little problem with these foundational principles. Even our churches and their leaders don’t quite understand that a Biblical approach to mental health should aim at shalom rather try to resolve “dis”-ease of a worldly view of mental health. I would argue with Psalm 11 that the righteous must consider what to do next in the face of the foundations being destroyed and having been replaced by faulty worldview foundations. It is high time to return to Biblical principles including the striving for shalom rather than the reduction of “dis”-ease through more governmental mental health intervention.

In future blogs… What should the role of state or federal government be in mental health?

Bibliography

Potter MD, E. (2023, June 1). True Health: What does it include in Biblical terms? (Part1) – Whole Person Whole Life. Whole Person Whole Life. https://wholepersonwholelife.com/true-health-what-does-it-include-biblical/

Mental health and the pandemic: What U.S. surveys have found. By John Gramlich Pew Research Center. March 2, 2023. Accessed August 30, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/03/02/mental-health-and-the-pandemic-what-u-s-surveys-have-found/

National Alliance on Mental Health. Mental Health By the Numbers. Last updated: April 2023. Accessed September 4, 2023. https://www.nami.org/mhstats

Hoge, A. (2023, August 29). Biden Expands ObamaCare For Mental Health Services at Schools to Psychoanalyze Children 0 to 21. News with Views. Accessed September 4, 2023. https://newswithviews.com/biden-expands-obamacare-for-mental-health-services-at-schools-to-psychoanalyze-children-0-to-21/

Whole Person Whole Life Blog

The Weight of Sin is Lighter – Veith

True Health: Biblical Values to Uphold In Whole Person Health – Part 2 – New Testament

The Basics of Family Covenant: A Creational Ordinance

The Changing Reasons We Gather Today – Part 2

Present School Shootings and Gun Rights

Conformed to Jesus – R.C. Sproul

The Changing Reasons We Gather Today – Part 1

Sexual Education According to the Elite

Covenant Defines Relationships

Politician’s Views of Mental Health Crisis

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta